Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 05.03.2010, passed in OP No.284 of 2009 by the IX Asst. City Civil Judge, Chennai.06, this civil revision petition is focused. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The revision petitioner herein filed OP No.284 of 2009 before the IX Assistant Civil Court with the following prayer: “(a) To record full satisfaction of the Debt under mortgage deed dated 26.02.2001 and direct the respondent to return the mortgage deed dated 26.02.2001 duly discharged and cause the same to be registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049. (b) To direct the respondent to refund the sum of Rs.2,48,823/- (Rupees two lakhs forty eight thousand eight hundred and twenty three only) and (c) For costs.” 4. After hearing both sides, the lower court passed orders finding that the said OP was not maintainable, in view of the fact that the respondent, namely The Madras Purasawalkam Hindu Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi Ltd. Is not covered by the special enactment, namely the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 (for short `the Act’), so to say it is not operative as against the respondent herein. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus: The lower Court was not justified I arriving at the conclusion that the special enactment, namely The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 is not operative as against the respondent herein. The Act is general in nature and any debtor expressing his grievance could approach the Court invoking the provisions of the said Act. 5. Placing reliance on the grounds of revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner borrowed money from the respondent and in connection with that he also created a registered mortgage, concerning his immovable property in favour of the respondent and so far, the revision petitioner paid to the respondent a sum of Rs.10,41,300/-(Rupees ten lakhs forty one thousand three hundred only). The respondent having collected such huge amount, is still proceeding as against the mortgaged property and trying to bring the property for sale as per Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondent having collected such huge amount, is still proceeding as against the mortgaged property and trying to bring the property for sale as per Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly, he prays for relief as set out supra from this Court. 6. Per conra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the said special enactment namely, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 is a separate Act by itself enacted to give benefit to persons who borrowed loans on daily vatti, hourly vati, kandhu vatti, meter vatti and thandal basis and not to the revision petitioner like the one before this Court who obtained money from the respondent, which is a Nidhi, which is a non-banking institution registered under the Company Act. He would also argue that it is not open for the revision petitioner to invoke the provisions of this Act. 7. The point for consideration are as to: (1) Whether this revision is maintainable in view of the grounds found set out in the memorandum of revision filed by the revision petitioner? And (2) Whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to entertain the OP? POINT NOS.1 & 2: 8. I would like to refer to the very prayer in the OP which is found extracted supra. Virtually the prayer in the OP is for getting a comprehensive relief which he could get only in a suit for redemption. The core question arises as to whether the revision petitioner is justified in approaching the lower Court to get such a comprehensive relief by invoking the special enactment namely, The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. A mere reading of the said special enactment would amply make the point clear that it was enacted to give succour to the people who are reeling under discomfitures and troubles, under the oppressive hands of the creditors who are usurious in demanding daily vatti, hourly vatti, kandhu vatti and meter vatti and the said enactment is not meant to give any direct benefit to the mortgagors to redeem the mortgages from the institutions like the respondent therein. The Transfer of Property Act as well as the CPC contemplates wholesome procedure to redeem mortgage and get back the original documents deposited with the mortgagee, the only course open for the mortgagor is to file a suit for redemption and in the process of dealing with the said suit for redemption, the Court is enjoyed to consider the rate of interest, legality of the interest charged and the quantum of amount so far paid by the mortgagor in favour of the mortgagee etc. In this factual matrix, a fortiori, the said special enactment which is having limited scope cannot be pressed into service by the the revision petitioner herein in the form of filing an O.P., and accordingly, I am of the view that the revision petition has to be dismissed. However, it is open for the revision petitioner to take appropriate steps as per law. 9. I make it clear that it is open for the petitioner to agitate as against the alleged exorbitant rates charged by the respondent, including his plea that the mandates as contained in the special enactment also could be applied as against the respondent in respect of calculation of interest and it is for the Court to consider on merits the same, untrammeled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in dismissing this revision petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.